<p>Dear Smoats: I’m not in the employment/recruiting business but some people on this thread are, and should be able to give you better advice than I can. Hopefully by the time you graduate law school the employment picture for new attorneys will be better than it is right now. </p>
<p>My experience has been that B.S. physics majors are generally considered to be equivalent to BSEEs as far as technical competence is concerned, but it really depends on the technologies of the company or the law firm’s clients (on the other had, some years back I was asked to review patent applications written by a Ph.D. physicist on some new semiconductor materials and they had serious problems in describing the chemistry involved. But that might have been due to individual skills of the person who wrote them and not due to his having had a Ph.D.).</p>
<p>I would suggest that, as least, your resume state clearly what physics courses were involved in your astronomy degree. I don’t guarantee that anyone will read that section, but you could at least mention them.</p>
<p>I may or may not end up being a college student again, but this thread seems to have the best collection of IP job search advice, so it’s worth a try. </p>
<p>During undergrad, I majored in political science purely because I enjoy it; although I originally planned to become a defense attorney, by the time I graduated, I had fallen in love with copyright law as a hobby. After finishing my BA, I went to a T1 law school and took a bunch of IP classes (specifically geared toward copyright and trademark–in my IP general overview class, I ended up enjoying trademark almost as much as copyright), intending to become a copyright lawyer. It was a rude awakening to graduate in the 2008 legal job environment and discover that every law firm advertising a copyright- or trademark-specific position required patent-bar eligibility (I assume “just in case?”). Had I known that during undergrad, I would have changed my major just to improve my chances of practicing copyright law.</p>
<p>I ended up practicing in an area of law which, for various reasons, is not my cup of tea. Obviously, my first choice for a new job is copyright and/or trademark law, but I’m still running into the patent-bar eligibility problem, even with over three years of litigation and arbitration experience. I am now to the point of considering going back to school to get a BS in…something (I’m thinking electrical engineering), but I don’t know if it’s worth it when 1. I already have over $200K in school loan debt that we can barely afford to pay and 2. law firms are looking for MAs and PhDs.</p>
<p>Is there some way I can position myself to practice copyright and/or trademark law without getting the science degree? It looks like a BS may suffice for an engineering degree, but since I will have zero experience actually using the engineering knowledge, will getting the BS even mean anything? I don’t want to spend the money on a degree if it won’t even be what firms are looking for.</p>
<p>Thank you for any help you can offer.</p>
<p>Phillylawyer: This is the first time I have heard that patent-bar eligibility is required everywhere for a trademark or copyright attorney’s position. I know that some law firms have preferred that, for flexibility. Perhaps Sallyawp or Cartera45 can comment; they’re in the recruiting function.</p>
<p>However, I don’t recommend going back to college for a scientific degree. That’s too drastic and too expensive.</p>
<p>I would say two things, however. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>There are never many positions for new trademark or copyright attorneys, usually only a small number. And if people are not leaving law firms due to the economy, then there will be fewer openings.</p></li>
<li><p>If you are looking in the Philadelphia area you probably are looking too narrowly. New York (the music business) or Calfornia (software, entertainment) would be more likely places (but of course you’ll need to take another bar exam). Alternatively perhaps you don’t have enough litigation experience yet to move into a law firm on that basis. See whether you can find a trademark or copyright partner in a local law firm and ask for an interview to gather information (emphasize that you are not looking for a job) and take him/her to lunch to ask for advice.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So I have some questions. I plan on going to UGA and doing a 3-1 type to get my bachelors and masters in computer science. I then was thinking about IP law. Would it be worth it to go to law school, financially wise? Or would the job market/debt doom me? And even more specifically, would I be doomed if I went to Duke, Emory or UGA law school? Obv duke and emory are better but would like to know on all of them. I’d like to stay in the Se</p>
<p>Vandice:</p>
<p>My crystal ball isn’t good enough to predict what the job market will be in 7 or 8 years, after you will have finished college and law school (if you carry out that plan).</p>
<p>As I have advised many others on this thread, you should choose your college major based only on what subject you like and would do well in, and not on whether or not it would be a good basis for IP law.</p>
<p>We’ve been receiving the same question (phrased in various ways) from students in hig school or just beginning college, so I thought it was timely to re-post my comments on that question (original post # 53).</p>
<p>For high school students</p>
<p>Having seen repeated questions about preparing for a career in patent law written by students still in high school, and having given the same answer to all, I thought it would be useful to post it here on this thread, to make it easier to find.</p>
<p>Again, this is my opinion.</p>
<p>Since you are only in high school it’s way too soon to be thinking in that vein. You’re putting the cart before the horse. Instead you should be focusing on college admissions, including what you want to study. If you feel you want to study engineering or one of the sciences to see whether it’s something you can do and like to study enough to put four years of work into getting that degree, then try that out. But don’t decide on it as a path to becoming a patent attorney. Since you’ll be spending a great deal of time over the next four years taking classes in that subject or related ones, first decide whether you like it well enough to spend the next four years learning about it. If not, then don’t look to major in it; otherwise you’ll be setting yourself up for the possibility of having four somewhat miserable years. </p>
<p>At this time you have the opportunity of setting yourself up for a good or even great college experience, so look at things from that perspective. Then you might (or might not) be able to decide whether you would rather be an engineer/scientist or write about inventions (and by the way, there is plenty of science involved in that). You might even (eventually) decide to forget about law school entirely, or major in something else entirely.</p>
<p>I obtained a B.S. in electrical engineering from an average school with average grades. I was not really into it at the time, and used my ability to grasp the math to get through and get a degree. I graduated three months after 9/11 and the job market was not great, so I decided to go to law school, as many people did at that time. I went to a below average law school because it gave me a good scholarship, but did very well and graduated magna cum laude. For the last 7 years, I have been a practicing attorney doing insurance defense (civil) litigation. I have been relatively successful, but hate it. I am now trying to decide what it is I want to do, and am considering all my options. I am wondering if patent law is one of them. If so, I will study for the patent bar.</p>
<p>Here is the hindering factor as I see it. I graduated from undergrad 12 years ago, and have not used my engineering education once in that time. My schooling is completely forgotten, and I’d be lucky if I could solve even the most basic calculus, physics, or intro to electronics problem. My degree shows I am capable, and qualifies me to sit for the patent bar, but other than that it is a worthless piece of paper. </p>
<p>So, my questions are: </p>
<p>1) do I need to actually have that engineering knowledge I probably once had, but now do not, to work as a patent attorney? </p>
<p>2) Will employers test me on that knowledge before even hiring me, leaving me with no shot at employment even after I pass the patent bar? </p>
<p>3) Finally, would I find it difficult to break into an entry level position with my background?</p>
<p>Thank you in advance for any guidance.</p>
<p>I have not practiced patent law in the electrical engineering or computer fields, so I’m not sure I’m the best person qualified to answer your questions, which are basically the same question.</p>
<p>To write and prosecute patent applications you might not have to solve any math or engineering problems, but you would have to be able to understand inventions in electrical enginnering and computer science so as to be able to describe and claim them properly, as well as to understand literature and patents cited by the examiner so as to be able to differentiate over them. You’re in a better position than I to decide whether or not your 12-year-old education would enable you to understand current technology well enough to do that. And you would have to be able to convince prospective employers of that.</p>
<p>If you like litigation but don’t like insurance defense work specifically, you might try to switch to IP litigation. Your engineering degree, even twelve years old, might enable you to understand technology involved in litigation without having to write patent applications. In that case you should try to contact one or more IP litigation partners in your city to see what they might think of your qualifications as an IP litigator.</p>
<p>In case you decide to sit for the patent bar, I strongly recommend that you take one of the review courses offered for that examination - don’t try to learn it all on your own.</p>
<p>I’m sure this has been answered in some form, but I need advice as I’m really unsure. I got my bachelors and masters in chemistry in five years and worked two industry jobs ( although not research based). I’m starting my first year of my phd in chemistry, but I am having some doubts. I’m doing my phd with the intention of ultimately doing patent law. If took my lsats, applied and got in to law school for the following academic year, would I be able to find a job with just an ms and a jd? Should I try to get another masters in Chem or even chemical engineering, or go through with the phd? If I can get into law school and have job prospects with an ms when I get out, I may prefer that.</p>
<p>Dear Madefix: As you surmised, questions like these have already been answered in this thread, so plase read through it.</p>
<p>Hi dadofsam,</p>
<p>Quite the impressive thread here. Thanks for taking so much time to answer questions.</p>
<p>I’m just about to finish a PhD in Chemical Engineering, with research focusing on biotech/diagnostics, but also using some techniques shared by the semiconductor industry. While in school I also took courses in public policy and law to earn a graduate certificate in science, technology, and public policy. I’ve been interested in law for a long time as well, so IP seems like a good way to bring the two together.</p>
<p>I’m looking at firms in the Bay Area, and many do have technical adviser positions or programs. I plan on applying to these, but have a couple of concerns.
[ul]
[<em>]I’ve never worked in the field of law, and I’m a bit daunted by the working hours that seem to be standard. Work-life balance is a big concern of mine. You’ve previously mentioned getting experience and then working as in-house counsel. How much experience is usually needed to get a job like that? If I like the work, but want more reasonable hours, are going in-house or trying to hang out my own shingle pretty much the only options?
[</em>]As someone interested but inexperienced in law, I’ve been pointed towards these technical adviser positions as a way of trying out the field without committing to years of law school. If I don’t like the work, what do you think are my options? Do you know anyone who’s tried such a position and moved on to something else? I guess I’m afraid that time away from a lab would make it harder to go back and get an R&D job, even though by this point I’m fairly certain pure R&D is not what I want to do.
[/ul]</p>
<p>Thanks again for the years(!) you’ve put into this thread. I really appreciate all the information you’ve shared.</p>
<p>Dear CanisNebula</p>
<p>A technical adviser’s position is a good way to find out whether you would be interested in drafting and prosecuting patent applications because in that position you would be writing parts of the applications. People usually do not stay in such positions for more than a few years unless they have a particular and unusual specialty or skill. Usually after a few years the adviser will be looking at either going to law school and becoming a patent attorney or not going to law school but seeking to become a patent agent.</p>
<p>Technical advisers usually work normal business hours (for example because they may be attending evening law school). However, their time is billable and the law firm will want to get the most billable hours they can out of these normal work hours. You would need to ask law firms what their expectations are in this regard.</p>
<p>If you have several years experience as a technical adviser and/or patent agent, it would be easier for you to move into an in-house position; companies are generally not willing to train someone in the basics (unless that person is already working at the company).</p>
<p>And if you find that you don’t like drafting and prosecuting patent applications you will move into something else (but I don’t know what that might be).</p>
<p>Thanks so much for your reply. It’s very helpful to get a sense of the expectations. With regards to the longer term, if I like the work, I would certainly be open to taking the patent bar, and probably to law school as well.</p>
<p>As I begin applying to such positions, in my resume and cover letters, what skills should I highlight, what concerns should I address, and what should I emphasize or avoid saying? My initial thoughts are to highlight technical communication skills to both scientific and more broad audiences, as well as experiences interacting with the policy, law, and business worlds. I’m trying to demonstrate that I have the ability to work with people of different disciplines, communicate well and succinctly, and that I’m not some awkward, socially inept PhD engineer 
– anything else I should try to cover?</p>
<p>Thanks again.</p>
<p>Dear CanisNebula:</p>
<p>I have to confess that I am not an expert when it comes to resume writing in today’s world of computer scanning of resumes. Also, I have not participated in hiring a technical adviser. However, the best advice I have seen recently has been that one should try to avoid sending a resume online to avoid the computer scanning function and instead find a way to determine who is the hiring manager for the position and get the resume directly to him or her.</p>
<p>I would expect that most important would be your technical skills, which would include an understanding of areas of technology based on your research and/or reading, your ability to carry out technical writing clearly and your ability to conduct technical literature (and possibly patent) searches. Knowledge of languages could be helpful. Hopefully you would be able to demonstrate your social skills at an interview.</p>
<p>Bear in mind that as a technical adviser you will, at least initially, be working under close supervision of a patent attorney whom you will have to satisfy in both your technical and personal skills, whether or not the attorney has good interpersonal skills. This may or may not resemble your career as a Ph.D. student working under a professor.</p>
<p>Good luck, if you choose this approach.</p>
<p>Further comment: by the “hiring manager” I did not mean the HR manager in the law firm; I meant the partner who heads up the chemistry and/or biotech patent group. That’s the person whose attention you should first try to catch.</p>
<p>ABSENT A SURPRISING DEVELOPMENT, THIS SHOULD BE MY LAST POST ON THIS THREAD</p>
<p>I started this post a number of years ago, when I was still a college parent. It has engendered over 80,000 views so far, and 19 pages of posts. And my son has long since graduated (and is currently in grad school)</p>
<p>However, I have now retired from the active practice of intellectual property law and am no longer in a position to provide helpful information on the current state of the profession. Some of my comments are still valid, and are likely to remain so for quite some time, but others will shortly become outdated and inaccurate. Additionally there have been no new posts for about six months. </p>
<p>I’m hoping that someone else will pick up the baton (or the banner) and continue providing advice to persons interested in this field. However, if that doesn’t seem to be happening I will ask the moderator to close this thread (while still leaving it pinned).</p>
<p>Thanks for posting, great information. Do you have a bachelor’s degree in science? </p>
<p>I have a bachelor’s degree in chemistry. When I entered this profession just about all patent attorneys had bachelor’s degrees in science or engineering and it also was possible to obtain jobs as research scientists with a bachelor’s degree. Neither of those is possible today with a degree in a science, but are still possible for those with engineering degrees. How much longer that will remain the case is anybody’s guess.</p>